twitter: rec.crafts.metalworking - 26 new messages in 11 topics

rec.crafts.metalworking
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

rec.crafts.metalworking@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The work of the gods is never done
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/bde09647478bb748?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 7:20 am
From: Lookout

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:18:51 -0500, Cliff
<Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/08/AR2010030801578.html?hpid=moreheadlines
>
> "utterly distasteful"
>
> "deaths of American soldiers are punishment for the nation's tolerance of
>homosexuality"
>
> "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11"
>
> "Semper Fi Fags"
>
> "Thank God for Dead Soldiers"
>
> "Priests Rape Boys."

Proudly presented by conservative republican voters.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: DIY Two-Stroke Engine
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/bcf5d37475198771?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 7:21 am
From: Anna

Jim Wilkins wrote:
> On Mar 8, 11:55 pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.now> wrote:
>> ...
>>> www.deltahawk.com
>
>> That link redirects to a poster site.
>> Tim Wescott
>
> http://www.deltahawkengines.com/
>
> Any day now.....
>
> jsw

saw the price? 71 Thou $$$$$$

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 7:26 am
From: Anna

Anna wrote:
> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 11:55 pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.now> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> www.deltahawk.com
>>
>>> That link redirects to a poster site.
>>> Tim Wescott
>>
>> http://www.deltahawkengines.com/
>>
>> Any day now.....
>>
>> jsw
>
> saw the price? 71 Thou $$$$$$

sorry, 'only' 62.500$ for Deltahawk

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 7:37 am
From: jan olieslagers

bod43 schreef:
>
> www.deltahawk.com
>
> Too big for ultralight I would guess but seems like
> a very fine plan for a light aircraft engine.
>
> 160 hp and upwards
>
> V4 two stroke diesel.

Yes yes, nice stuff though expensive. But the original question was
about building one's engine from scratch.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bibles Wanted !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/f2e06ad69080532c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 7:33 am
From: "lab~rat >:-)"

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:04:05 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout@yahoo.com>
puked:

>On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:07:55 -0500, "lab~rat >:-)" <chase@cheeze.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:02:04 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout@yahoo.com>
>>puked:
>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:07:03 -0500, "lab~rat >:-)" <chase@cheeze.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:42:32 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout@yahoo.com>
>>>>puked:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:39:08 -0500, "lab~rat >:-)" <chase@cheeze.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:21:44 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>puked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:37:28 -0500, "lab~rat >:-)" <chase@cheeze.net>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:45:12 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>puked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:18:00 -0500, "lab~rat >:-)" <chase@cheeze.net>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:44:33 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>puked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:13:08 -0500, "lab~rat >:-)" <chase@cheeze.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:01:50 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>puked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:12:41 -0500, "lab~rat >:-)" <chase@cheeze.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:16:11 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>puked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:37:39 -0500, "lab~rat >:-)" <chase@cheeze.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 06:55:06 -0500, Cliff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> puked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/02/national/main6260070.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ya know, as an atheist, I really wonder what this group is thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>about. The whole point of being an atheist is distancing yourself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>from a group of sheep that believe the same thing, but these assholes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>seem to be inserting themselves in the community to interfere with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>those sheep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They would be the first ones bitching if xtian groups were out there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>condemning atheists and ridiculing their beliefs, yet there they are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>prosthelytizing every bit as much as a fucking Jehovah's Witness
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>standing on your porch Saturday morning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As I've pointed out atheists are as wrong as theists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In what regard?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can't prove there is no god anymore than a theist can prove there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>is one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>And furthermore, you can't prove one is more wrong than the other.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Go back and look at what I said. I said they are both just as wrong as
>>>>>>>>>>>the other.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I saw what you said. I still say you're wrong. It's a logical
>>>>>>>>>>fallacy to claim that's an absolute. If there WERE a god, and that
>>>>>>>>>>god was as described by a set religion, then that religion would be
>>>>>>>>>>LESS wrong than atheism.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"IF" doesn't cut it. Try again using absolutes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You're clearly agnostic as you believe that neither can ever be proven
>>>>>>>>>>or explained, but your agnostic belief is just as capable of being
>>>>>>>>>>wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And wrong again.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And the statement you should have said was:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Both (atheism) and (christianity) are CAPABLE of being just as wrong
>>>>>>>>>>as the other.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And wrong again.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>For now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>But that being said, stories in the bible can be proven to be false.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>And some have some historical references that can be proven.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Clearly. I'm referring more to the magical miracle part that makes
>>>>>>>>>>the bible a religious book.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Nah..makes it a fairy tale.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm not sure what we are arguing about here. You think that atheism
>>>>>>>>and christianity are equally wrong in what way?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They both claim to have the answer. Neither can prove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That isn't true. Atheism isn't believing in god. It has nothing to
>>>>>>do with providing answers. I don't pretend to have the answers
>>>>>>because to be perfectly honest, I don't know what the questions are...
>>>>>
>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
>>>>>Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities
>>>>>
>>>>>That can't be proved any more than the existence of deities.
>>>>>
>>>>>Both are equally as wrong.
>>>>
>>>>You don't know that to be true. Again, to be logically consistent,
>>>>this is the phrase:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Both (atheism) and (christianity) are CAPABLE of being just as wrong
>>>>>>>>>as the other.
>>>
>>>No. Both are just as wrong as neither can be proved with 100%
>>>certainty.
>>
>>For something to be wrong, it has to be incorrect, not unprovable.
>
>Both are unprovable

A lot like AGW...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 7:34 am
From: "lab~rat >:-)"

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:08:23 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout@yahoo.com>
puked:

>On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:43:48 -0500, "lab~rat >:-)" <chase@cheeze.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:36:50 -0500, Cliff
>><Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> puked:
>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:42:27 -0500, "lab~rat >:-)" <chase@cheeze.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:05:48 -0500, Cliff
>>>><Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> puked:
>>>>
>>>>>>They would be the first ones bitching if xtian groups were out there
>>>>>>condemning atheists and ridiculing their beliefs,
>>>>>
>>>>> Like they always do, right?
>>>>
>>>>"They"?
>>>
>>> The fundies.
>>
>>The fundies, the jews, the "professional atheists", there's no limit
>>to the asshole groups that bitch and whine.
>
>Agreed. And all are just as wrong as the other
>>
>>>
>>>>That's presuming that atheists are a homogenized group that
>>>>follow a common belief. Most atheist don't belong to an organized
>>>>group and think all of the religious BS is for other people and aren't
>>>>particularly fazed by it.
>>>>
>>>>It seems like the people that get upset about the 10 commandments, or
>>>>xmas in the mall or whatever actually belong to some type of religion
>>>>that takes exception to it.
>>>
>>> All of which is about forcing one religion on others.
>>> It's a sales pitch.
>>>
>>> Too bad the tooth fairy was so cheap.
>>
>>Do you think the 10 commandments actually are an attempt to do that?
>>I don't. Should I be bothered by that for some reason?
>
>The problem is there are actually between 5 and 12 more commandments
>that the King James version doesn't like so they just left them out.

So do you think there should be more or less included?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 9:15 am
From: torquemada

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:02:04 -0600
Lookout <mrLookout@yahoo.com> wrote:

> No. Both are just as wrong

Oh LOOKIE who's back!

Let's review some of your ueslessnet boasts, ya wannabe sex-freak:

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:52:43 -0600
> Message-ID: <3p8bn5p27s4d8f336lleui5trp7tb097dv@4ax.com>
>
> "I can show you pics
> of my then girlfriend and now wife naked in the barracks."
>
> Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:22:33 -0600
> Message-ID: <p1d4n5pedrchnffd7i545c7vgme5m93j98@4ax.com>
>
> "And as I said I had several 3somes with two girls and me so hey..I was all for it."
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MBWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!

Come on kiddo, post the pics!!!!

LOLOLOLOLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
http://hindutva.org/quran.html

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 9:45 am
From: torquemada

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:58:32 -0600
Lookout <mrLookout@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You two idiots are 50 years to late.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 9:45 am
From: torquemada

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:59:26 -0600
Lookout <mrLookout@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You wont' get a damn thing, chicken shit.

--
http://hindutva.org/quran.html

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 9:46 am
From: torquemada

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:04:05 -0600
Lookout <mrLookout@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Both are unprovable

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Almost Alice
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/5e2f1cc6cf0f2658?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 7:57 am
From: R

On 3/9/2010 9:30 AM, Snag wrote:
> Gunner Asch wrote:
>> Not bad..not bad at all....
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/user/hollywoodrecords#p/a/u/1/sUsyF8E2qd4
>>
>>
>> Gunner
>
> Wouldn't that be "Almost Gracie" ??
>
> Chick is good , but not quite Slick ...
>

Definitely not Slick, and not the Airplane. It is a nice try, though,
it made me dig out the original, Thanks Gunner!

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 8:17 am
From: "Snag"

R wrote:
> On 3/9/2010 9:30 AM, Snag wrote:
>> Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> Not bad..not bad at all....
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/user/hollywoodrecords#p/a/u/1/sUsyF8E2qd4
>>>
>>>
>>> Gunner
>>
>> Wouldn't that be "Almost Gracie" ??
>>
>> Chick is good , but not quite Slick ...
>>
>
> Definitely not Slick, and not the Airplane. It is a nice try, though,
> it made me dig out the original, Thanks Gunner!

Saw Daltrey and Clapton friday night , I been diggin' thru the vinyl ... Got
some Starship , but no Airplane . Well , 'cept for some digital I got saved
.

--
Snag
"90 FLHTCU "Strider"
'39 WLDD "PopCycle"
BS 132/SENS/DOF

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 8:31 am
From: Gunner Asch

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:57:00 -0500, R <R@invaild.invaild> wrote:

>On 3/9/2010 9:30 AM, Snag wrote:
>> Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> Not bad..not bad at all....
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/user/hollywoodrecords#p/a/u/1/sUsyF8E2qd4
>>>
>>>
>>> Gunner
>>
>> Wouldn't that be "Almost Gracie" ??
>>
>> Chick is good , but not quite Slick ...
>>
>
>Definitely not Slick, and not the Airplane. It is a nice try, though,
>it made me dig out the original, Thanks Gunner!

<G>
Jerwelcome!

Gunner, listening to Captian Beefheart on Windows Media Player

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 8:44 am
From: "Steve B"

"Gunner Asch" <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d88cp5pa2118jkmh8eaqdrov6j6kpe8ofe@4ax.com...
> Not bad..not bad at all....
>
> http://www.youtube.com/user/hollywoodrecords#p/a/u/1/sUsyF8E2qd4
>
>
> Gunner

Ahhh. Shades of Grace Slick, The Airplane, and
Hashbury....................... If I could only remember .............

Steve

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Magnets
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/fd312a0cf0275bfb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 8:07 am
From: RBnDFW

Ed Huntress wrote:
> "Jerry Wass" <wassbiplane@tds.net> wrote in message
> news:ussln.106$Sp1.27@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
>> Henry wrote:
>>> Does anyone have a good source for some really tiny, but powerful
>>> magnets, preferably all weather type?
>>
>> Google neodiyium magnets
>
> Or try neodymium magnets. d8-)
>

whatever <G>

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 8:27 am
From: "Steve B"

>
> > Does anyone have a good source for some really tiny, but powerful
> > magnets,
> > preferably all weather type?
>

I got what I think was a good deal from www.magnetsource.com

Steve

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 8:41 am
From: "Steve B"

"RBnDFW" <burkheimer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hn5rnl$c3d$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>> "Jerry Wass" <wassbiplane@tds.net> wrote in message
>> news:ussln.106$Sp1.27@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
>>> Henry wrote:
>>>> Does anyone have a good source for some really tiny, but powerful
>>>> magnets, preferably all weather type?
>>>
>>> Google neodiyium magnets
>>
>> Or try neodymium magnets. d8-)
>>
>
> whatever <G>

When I google neodiyium magnets, it takes me to neodymium magnets. Are they
the same? What are the basic differences in metallurgy? Am I being
redirected by malware? Should I be concerned? Is this another Obama
conspiracy to pirate a private market?

Steve ;-)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT Browsers OT
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/42ff6843726afa73?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 8:26 am
From: "Steve B"

Did I mention this was OT. I don't want some idiot blathering that it's not
metal related.

Please help me wrap my brain around browsers. I recently updated to IE8,
and I hear people say how great Mozilla and Firefox is, and what a POS IE8
is. What, basically are the differences, and how will it improve my life?

BTW, this is an OT post. Make a note of it.

Steve

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 8:58 am
From: Ignoramus17831

On 2010-03-09, Steve B <deserttraver@fishymail.net> wrote:
> Did I mention this was OT. I don't want some idiot blathering that it's not
> metal related.
>
> Please help me wrap my brain around browsers. I recently updated to IE8,
> and I hear people say how great Mozilla and Firefox is, and what a POS IE8
> is. What, basically are the differences, and how will it improve my life?
>
> BTW, this is an OT post. Make a note of it.
>

I cannot help you compare Firefox and IE8, but enwer browser Google
Chrome is even better than Firefox.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 9:42 am
From: R

On 3/9/2010 11:26 AM, Steve B wrote:

What, basically are the differences, and how will it improve my life?
>
> BTW, this is an OT post. Make a note of it.
>
> Steve

One reason not to use Mozilla and Firefox�
Every so often, Firefox uses 100% of your processor's capacity for no
real good reason. It grinds everything to a halt and leaves the computer
unresponsive.
I still use it.��

Chrome and Safari use far less of your CPU's capacity (The Chrome part
now makes this metal related)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Question about tunnel digging...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/1a0f3f28abe4575a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 8:30 am
From: Ecnerwal

In article <hHsln.39286$jt1.27531@newsfe01.iad>,
"Chet" <ancr@nospam.centurytel.net> wrote:

> I guess I didn't make my question clear...
> Yes, I understand how an above ground single tower would provide an accurate
> reference point for both tunnel teams.
> However, once you are several dozen yards under a river, how do you view
> that tower?
> A periscope sounds very difficult given the water seals that would
> constantly be necessary, to say nothing of the top of the unit not being
> sheared off by the incredibly heavy river traffic...
> Soooooo.... any actual sand hogs out there??????

_Elementary_Surveying_. An accurate transfer of direction and level into
the hole, checked several ways - no periscopes involved. If you handle
"dry" material well, check out a copy of Breed and Hosmer. Mine (8th
ed.) dates from the 1950's, the content may not have changed since 1931.

Underground Surveying is covered in articles 355-380. There is also an
extensive list of references for more detail at the end of article 380.

If you'd like a challenging hole to consider, consider the spiral
railway tunnels west of Lake Louise in Canukistan, which were also dug
from both ends to the middle.

Accuracy is not a 20th century invention, though it has been refined and
made easier to come by.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Buretting a very small volume.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/18dc2527a8a06e7b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 9:01 am
From: Tim Wescott

Jim Wilkins wrote:
> On Mar 9, 12:06 am, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.now> wrote:
>> I want to CC a few Cox 049 heads, but none of them are going to contain
>> more than a fraction of a CC of volume.
> ...
>> Tim Wescott
>
> I'd try a brazing rod piston and a cylinder of telescoping brass
> tubing, with a blob of RTV to seal the piston. Neck down the end of
> the piston so the RTV will stay in place while you suck the fluid into
> the cylinder. Determine the volume from the length the piston extends
> out the back.
>
> How will you know that the compressed volume is filled accurately
> without the glow plug in place?
>
> If it's worth the effort you might turn a dummy glow plug with a hole
> through the middle. Then among other ways you could compress a drop of
> expanding foam to make an accurate chamber casting. If you use Wood's
> metal you could weigh it.

I'm going to clamp the head to a piece of acrylic sheet with an itty
bitty hole in it, and measure the volume of the cavity complete with
glow plug. This is absolutely necessary with the Cox heads, because
they _are_ the glow plug, and just about absolutely necessary with a
glow plug adapter head, because with a displacement that small the
volume of the cavity in the glow plug cannot be ignored.

I expect that brand and model of glow plug will be important, and hope
that manufacturing differences between different glow plugs of the same
make & model won't be too severe.

--
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Fire the lazy bastards
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/96ee8cae9e4eac6b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 9:04 am
From: Don Foreman

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:25:49 GMT, "Harold & Susan Vordos"
<vordos@tds.net> wrote:

>
>"RoyJ" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
>news:HJmdnVdubLvigQnWnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> Not really. Under full load, a typical RCM motor will pull 1500 watts +/-
>Maybe I don't know what a "typical RCM motor" is, but to that I say
>nonsense. If a 1 horse motor is run AT CAPACITY, it draws roughly 746
>watts. If it's drawing higher wattage, it's not running at capacity, but
>over capacity. That's not what we're talking about.

The rating of a motor refers to it's output, not its input. Real
motors are not perfectly efficient. A 1 HP motor must be 82.5%
efficient or better to be labled as NEMA EPACT. Smaller motors tend
to be less efficient than larger motors, efficiency defined as
output/input.
>
>>But the only motors that pull that kind of power CONTINUOUSLY are pumps and
>>compressors.
>
>Rather bold statement, isn't it? Any motor that is running at capacity,
>doing the work it is intended to do, is drawing its rated amperage.

Different motors delivering the same amount of HP can draw different
amperages because they can have different power factors as well as
different efficiencies. Power factor is the cosine of the phase angle
between voltage and current, which can be substantial in an induction
motor. Actual power, that which registers on your KWH meter, is
voltage * current * power factor.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 9:06 am
From: Winston

On 3/9/2010 12:31 AM, Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

(...)

> I believe you are correct in your assessment. They generally rate by
> locked rotor amperage, which is totally useless to the consumer.
>
> Sears has, for years, used shady methods of advertising machinery,
> compressors included.
>
> I have a theory relating to Sears. Read what they say, then assume 1/4
> of the advertised power. That *might* get you close.
>
> Harold

There is good news, though.

We buy with Sears Dollars, that lost 75% of their value since 1975.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

--Winston

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hoo Boy!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/750e62ba6209da1d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 9:08 am
From: Winston

On 3/9/2010 6:40 AM, Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 22:27:22 -0800, "Steve B"
> <deserttraver@fishymail.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> If I had known hearing aids were so good, I'd have gotten some five years
>> earlier, too.
>
>
> People were probably telling you all about the benefits of hearing
> aids for years. Just one problem, though...<g>
>
> Joe

What?

--Winston

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Just One Use items
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/609e016466adc86d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 9 2010 9:47 am
From: "Robert Swinney"

Naw, Wes. I meant run whilst the bear is attracted to the other guy. Too bad if it happens to be
your hunting companion.

Bob Swinney
"Wes" <clutch@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:WMgln.191888$Hq1.160713@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com...
"Robert Swinney" <judybob@tx.rr.com> wrote:

>Jim sez
>"What's in the bear spray, napalm?" Naw, better if the spray contains sex pheromones, so you can
>through on your hunting companion while you get Hell out of there..

How fast do you have to run to out run a bear? Faster than the guy next to you.

Wes

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.crafts.metalworking"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.crafts.metalworking+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

twitter

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

rec.crafts.metalworking - 26 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Previous Posts